30% is the industry standard across the board, with the exception of Epic which takes 12%. However, Epic has already shown that it’s ready to dump loads of money into store exclusivity deals and tons of free games, so I will argue it’s for the sake of growing the number of users and developers using their platform.

But do they, or any other competitor or similar store, offer the same functionality as Steam? rtxn already mentioned some. And there’s more. And then there’s the fact that Valve is using all that money not only to stuff the pockets of alread rich people (not that Gabe isn’t a multi-millionaire if not billionaire, idk), but actually puts it back into the industry: Their own store, Linux/Proton (you may not care, but Microsoft becoming a monopoly in PC gaming is no good), and hardware (with their Steam Deck handheld, and VR stuffs).

Steam might be the biggest player when it comes to storefronts, but it’s because they’ve actually earned it. And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene (other than existing). In fact, they keep trying, and keep failing, and then going back to Steam.

I’m not opposed to more money going to developers, but let’s not single out Steam, who (perhaps besides GOG? I am not familiar enough with it) is doing the most for users and develpers.

And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene

Doesn’t Steam also mandate that a game on Steam that’s also on other platforms MUST have the lowest price on Steam? So if a game goes on sale on another store, the Steam version must also match that sale within a given time period.

That’s a pretty big road block, especially if a developer might be willing to sell for a lower price on another storefront that takes another cut.

THAT is actively blocking competition.

That requirement only exists when you also offer a Steam key for the game that’s being sold. So Valve is actually the good guy here: You can sell on another store, where Steam doesn’t get any money, and give the user a Steam key, provided by Steam for free, and the only thing they ask is to match the price on Steam.

Don’t offer a Steam key, and you can pick any price.

That is my understanding of the issue.

There is a claim by some developers that Valve was pressuring them behind the scenes (“don’t offer your game for cheaper elsewhere or else we’ll take it down from our store”) a while ago, but I’ve never seen appropriate proof of it, and that was part of (an earlier?) lawsuit.

We should regularly be seeing lower All-Time-Lows for most multi-platform games on non-Steam platforms then, right?

I don’t think we do. Why not?

Because that’s not beneficial for companies. They want to make (more) money.

The only option most developers and publishers would have is to move to another store, where the cut is usuallt the same with the exception of Epic Games Store. And as pointed out elsewhere, setting up and managing your own store ends up being more expensive than a 30% cut. And then you still don’t have the same features as Steam.

Because that’s not beneficial for companies. They want to make (more) money.

If having a lower price means you make more sales, then yes, it definitely can be beneficial for companies.

If you want to make $40 per copy, you could sell for $60 on Steam, or about $47.00 on Epic.

Being on sale for $47 would “unlock” more customers than you’d get if your game was only available for $60 everywhere. Some customers won’t ever buy the game at $60, but they would at $47, and the company makes the same amount of money.

That is beneficial for companies.

Why are you making it my responsibility to explain why companies are not passing on their savings to consumers?